They should scrap the PS3 version.

[Abriael]

You can't stream common assets, this is why games have minimum memory requirements to begin with. You could stream local assets but you'd still need to keep your common asset memory size constant for performance reasons.

Also I don't really see any evidence the ARR engine is streaming any assets except LOD. That will save on mipmapping memory requirements and nothing much else.

Which is exactly why memory restrictions have absolutely nothing to do with the reduction of the zone size. Zones have a theme, and even if they're not tiled anymore they use pretty much the same assets fitting that theme all over the zone. Having a zone even twice as big wouldn't cause many more assets to be loaded whether it's streaming or not, unless the theme changed radically from one side to the other, and it doesn't.

Your argument is centered around "the lead platforms are switched." Yes, this is a "basic" and "understandable" concept, however, your argument is still flawed.

It's not just MY argument. It's also Yoshida's argument, and if you think you know better then him, I'm sure you'll forgive me if i have a laugh.

That really doesn't matter. Even if the "main" version isn't held back, the other versions still are

And? It doesn't matter of the PS3 version is held back. That's the problem of PS3 players. I'm sure they'll have no problem deciding between not playing the game at all and playing it with lesser graphics.

and you still end up buying a new console later to keep playing when support is dropped.

There's no reason to believe that support will be dropped any time soon.

The problem of "we can't do this" is less pronounced, but problems still exist- Problems that would never happen if the game wasn't released on those non-upgradable platforms in the first place.

Nope. The problem does not exist, as most assets can be downgraded with a single click activating a batch operation and ALL assets can be downgraded in general to fit.

Wrong. I told you why it is ON the mark, and I do have an argument- which I spent a 10 mile long post explaining, and have continued to elaborate on there.

Your post being 10 mile long doesn't make it any less misguided and misleading. It's just misguided and misleading for 10 miles.

Cry as much as you want, but the PS3 version is here to stay, and PC gamers that actually know how this works have nothing to worry about it.

[Alhanelem]

Cry as much as you want, but the PS3 version is here to stay, and PC gamers that actually know how this works have nothing to worry about it.

You're right, it is here to stay. I'm not crying- I'm simply posing a logical argument about what would be better for the game- regardless of whether or not it will actually happen.

Nope. The problem does not exist, as assets can be downgraded with a single click activating a batch operation.

The problem does exist. batch-downgrading assets doesn't solve the issue at hand.

There's no reason to believe that support will be dropped any time soon.

Who said anything about soon? It took 10 years of FFXI before PS2 support began the process of being dropped in FFXI. It *will* happen, eventually. Then you'll have a million threads bitching about the support drop and how "we're still customers too" and "we shouldn't have to buy a new console to play the game" - and on that last part, I agree- if only they bought a PC, it would have lasted longer before even needing upgrades, and you could perform those upgrades for less than buying a new console.

And? It doesn't matter of the PS3 version is held back. That's the problem of PS3 players.

A problem that is better solved by not having the PS3 version at all- The extra customers aren't worth it when they become disgruntled squeaky wheels years down the road.

[Abriael]

You're right, it is here to stay. I'm not crying- I'm simply posing a logical argument about what would be better for the game- regardless of whether or not it will actually happen.

Only, your argument doesn't include much logic and especially it doesn't include much knowledge about the topic at hand.

The problem does exist. batch-downgrading assets doesn't solve the issue at hand.

Only it does. That's how you fit a game from a superior platform into an inferior one.

Who said anything about soon? It took 10 years of FFXI before PS2 support began the process of being dropped in FFXI. It *will* happen, eventually. Then you'll have a million threads bitching about the support drop and how "we're still customers too" and "we shouldn't have to buy a new console to play the game"

It's not my responsibility to worry about bitching nor is yours. FFXI is still alive and kicking, despite the bitches. This is a technical discussion, not a discussion about people bitching because maybe, who knows, support for their platform will be dropped several years from now.

- and on that last part, I agree- if only they bought a PC, it would have lasted longer before even needing upgrades, and you could perform those upgrades for less than buying a new console.

Not everyone wants to bother with all the additional work a PC brings. Which is why consoles have a bigger installed base than gaming PC. A lot of people just want to put the disc in and play and bringing in that *massive* playerbase can only be good for PC players as well.

The more money a game makes, the more it'll be supported, on all platforms.

[Alhanelem]

Not everyone wants to bother with all the additional work a PC brings. Which is why consoles have a bigger installed base than gaming PC.

Actually, that's not true. PCs have a larger install base in North America and Europe. Only in Japan do they have a larger install base- largely because Japan is a highly populated area and many households are small in space don't have the space for a PC.

Even the most rudimentary PC bought today can play many games out there.

Only it does. That's how you fit a game from a superior platform into an inferior one.

The only way to fit a game from a superior platform to an inferior one is to make the game inferior on that platform. I would not release my product on any platform where I can not assure the highest quality over time.

It's not my responsibility to worry about bitching. FFXI is still alive and kicking, despite the bitches.

Nobody said you had a responsibility. that doesn't mean this is a good thing.

[Abriael]

Actually, that's not true. PCs have a larger install base in North America and Europe. Only in Japan do they have a larger install base- largely because Japan is a highly populated area and many households are small in space don't have the space for a PC.

Even the most rudimentary PC bought today can play many games out there.

Which is why I said GAMING PC. Sure. There are a whole lot of PCs out there with integrated intel graphics card. Guess what? They won't run ARR, even more so because their owners are not gamers and can't care the less about Final Fantasy.

The installed base of the PS3 in the hands of actual gamers is much larger.

The only way to fit a game from a superior platform to an inferior one is to make the game inferior on that platform. I would not release my product on any platform where I can not assure the highest quality over time.

That's your personal problem, and has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Nobody said you had a responsibility. that doesn't mean this is a good thing.

Again. The more money a game makes, the more it'll be supported, on all platforms. And yes, it's a good thing.

[Ladon]

Which is exactly why memory restrictions have absolutely nothing to do with the reduction of the zone size. Zones have a theme, and even if they're not tiled anymore they use pretty much the same assets fitting that theme all over the zone. Having a zone even twice as big wouldn't cause many more assets to be loaded whether it's streaming or not, unless the theme changed radically from one side to the other, and it doesn't.

Yes they do. As I said, the only evidence of stream we have are LOD assets (as per the benchmark for example) also the PS3 videos shown so far don't show any of the typical artifacts that would be present if the game was streaming local assets.

This means that it is highly unlikely that ARR engine supports asset stream as say UE3 might. This is also why it makes sense that zone size is restrictive as it is. Your zone size itself has no impact on network performance. From the network side, the main reason they went with a zoning system is that they can hard cap the amount of players that are in any given zone and this allows them to determine a solid capacity number they can work with.

It's far more likely that zone size is a product of assets they can load in a given area and if you start stretching your assets thin then you end up with the old 1.0, cut-n-paste and barren areas which I am sure they wanted to avoid at all costs.

[Demacus]

the "PS2 limitations" part I guess refers to Final Fantasy XI, which is an entirely different animal. The PS2 limited the PC in FFXI because the game was created for the PS2 and then ported to the PC. There was little upgrading that could be done without redesigning the assets completely, so the PC version didn't look too stellar.

On the other hand FFXIV is developed with PC as the lead platform, which means the PS3 version doesn't limit the PC version at all.

They could run on a completely different graphics engnine and still work together seamlessly online as the only necessary common denominator is the data flow. All the graphical assets are client side. As long as the assets that offer a level of interaction with the players are in the same position, the PC version could have gorgeous green grass made of 212232 polygons per blade and the PS3 version could have purple grass made of cubes and it'd change absolutely nothing functionality-wise.

Again, the PS3 version doesn't "limit" the PC version in any way.

This!

Everyone should keep in mind that FFXIV was designed with the whole "console version limits the PC version" thing in mind. While the console version will have its own limitations, it won't affect the PC version in any way.

[Abriael]

Yes they do. As I said, the only evidence of stream we have are LOD assets (as per the benchmark for example) also the PS3 videos shown so far don't show any of the typical artifacts that would be present if the game was streaming local assets.

This means that it is highly unlikely that ARR engine supports asset stream as say UE3 might.

ARR's engine is based on Luminous, that does support asset streaming.

This is also why it makes sense that zone size is restrictive as it is. Your zone size itself has no impact on network performance. From the network side, the main reason they went with a zoning system is that they can hard cap the amount of players that are in any given zone and this allows them to determine a solid capacity number they can work with.

It's not just that. If you have smaller zones and your content is well spread, your population will automatically be spread between more zones, resulting in less traffic per server in the cluster.

It's far more likely that zone size is a product of assets they can load in a given area and if you start stretching your assets thin then you end up with the old 1.0, cut-n-paste and barren areas which I am sure they wanted to avoid at all costs.

They don't need to stretch anything thin. Even if the areas aren't cut and paste, every game has themed texture packages. If you look at every ARR video and the benchmark you'll see that textures and models are kept consistent throughout a zone. They just aren't arranged in larger tiles for ease of placing like 1.0 did.

Which means that it doesn't really matter if a zone is 10000 square feet or 40000. The assets are still pretty much the same. They are just repeated in a much more clever and less sloppy way than they were in 1.0.

[Alhanelem]

That's your personal problem, and has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

On the contrary, it has everything to do with the subject at hand, because the quality of the game is the whole point of this debate- People who don't want the PS3 version to exist don't want it to exist because it will bring down the quality of the game- at the very least for the people who buy the lesser version.

You do not need 8347265873465873465 players to have a successful MMO- better to have a quality experience on one platform than a lesser quality experience on several. As long as the game is profitable, it will be supported. Everquest is still running after all these years- Does it have a huge playerbase? No. Does it make money? Yes. Therefore, it keeps running.

[Abriael]

On the contrary, it has everything to do with the subject at hand, because the quality of the game is the whole point of this debate- People who don't want the PS3 version to exist don't want it to exist because it will bring down the quality of the game- at the very least for the people who buy the lesser version.

LOL. People that don't want the PS3 version do so just because of an irrational fear that it will hold back the PC version, as many posts on this thread demonstrate.

It has nothing to do with the quality of the PS3 version, that we didn't see yet anyway. if you're not a PS3 gamer you have no place deciding for them if they should prefer playing the game with a quality that fits their console or not playing it at all.

You do not need 8347265873465873465 players to have a successful MMO- better to have a quality experience on one platform than a lesser quality experience on several. As long as the game is profitable, it will be supported. Everquest is still running after all these years- Does it have a huge playerbase? No. Does it make money? Yes. Therefore, it keeps running.

The more paying players you have, the higher your budget, the more you can spend on the game, the higher quality you can push. The more you can afford spreading your target further with more localizations, more platforms, more content, allowing the game to grow upon itself. This is an iron-clad equation.

It's the difference between a game that survives and a game that thrives. You seem to want the game to merely survive. Obviously that's a completely illogical standpoint.